INFORMAL LEARNING OF ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP AT SCHOOL

Lifelong Learning Book SeriesVOLUME 14

Series EditorsDavid N. Aspin, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne,AustraliaJudith D. Chapman, Centre for Lifelong Learning, Australian Catholic University,Melbourne, Australia

Editorial BoardWilliam L. Boyd, Department of Education Policy Studies, Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, PA, USAKaren Evans, Institute of Education, University of London, UKMalcolm Skilbeck, Drysdale, Victoria, AustraliaYukiko Sawano, University of the Sacred Heart, Tokyo, JapanKaoru Okamoto, Denis W. Ralph, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

Aims & Scope“Lifelong Learning” has become a central theme in education and communitydevelopment. Both international and national agencies, governments andeducational institutions have adopted the idea of lifelong learning as their majortheme for address and attention over the next ten years. They realize that it is onlyby getting people committed to the idea of education both life-wide and lifelongthat the goals of economic advancement, social emancipation and personalgrowth will be attained.

The Lifelong Learning Book Series aims to keep scholars and professionalsinformed about and abreast of current developments and to advance research andscholarship in the domain of Lifelong Learning. It further aims to providelearning and teaching materials, serve as a forum for scholarly and professionaldebate and offer a rich fund of resources for researchers, policy-makers, scholars,professionals and practitioners in the field.

The volumes in this international Series are multi-disciplinary in orientation,polymathic in origin, range and reach, and variegated in range and complexity.They are written by researchers, professionals and practitioners working widelyacross the international arena in lifelong learning and are orientated towardspolicy improvement and educational betterment throughout the life cycle.

For

National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo, Japan

http://www.springer.com/series/6227further volumes:

Jaap ScheerensEditor

Informal Learning of ActiveCitizenship at School

An International Comparative Study in SevenEuropean Countries

123

Editor

Prof. Jaap ScheerensUniversity of TwenteDepartment of Educational Organization & ManagementDrienerlolaan 57522 NB EnschedeThe Netherlandsj.scheerens@gw.utwente.nl

ISBN 978-1-4020-9620-4 e-ISBN 978-1-4020-9621-1

DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9621-1

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008942094

c© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recordingor otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exceptionof any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being enteredand executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

Printed on acid-free paper

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

springer.com

Editorial by Series Editors

The Lifelong Learning Book Series aims to advance research and scholarship inthe domain of Lifelong Learning. It further aims to offer a rich compilation of andaccess to a range of resources for researchers, policy-makers, scholars, professionalsand practitioners in the field. The volumes in this Series are written by researchers,professionals and practitioners working widely across the international arena andare orientated towards policy improvement and educational betterment throughoutand across the life cycle.

The theme of “Lifelong Learning”, and a range of issues, topics and problemsarising within and from its field, has been confirmed as a central concern of policy,practice and programs in education. International and national agencies, govern-ments and educational institutions have realized that it is only by getting peoplecommitted to the idea of education, both life-wide and lifelong, for vocational, pro-fessional and individual purposes, that the goals of economic advancement, socialinclusion and participation in democratic institutions, and the extension of personalautonomy and growth will be attained. A significant part of the scholarly attentionand professional activities devoted to these last two topics has been centred uponthe notions and fields of Civic and Citizenship Education, and it is to these notionsthat the present volume is addressed.

The volume edited by Jaap Scheerens is focussed on the importance of the idea ofactive citizenship, and the ways in which this notion may be developed and extendedin and for the citizens of democratic polities, both formally and informally, in andthrough patterns of learning offered and facilitated in the work, activities and rela-tionships of primary and secondary schools. The international comparative study onwhich this book is based, and the data analyses and discussions of findings in thetext, make a major contribution in these fields, as well as offering an extension of itsreaders’ understandings of associated concepts and themes, including internation-alisation, social cohesion, multiculturalism, social capital, and citizenship. Giventhe current climate of growing interest in and the search for evidence-based edu-cational policy, this book provides an invaluable inventory of resources, argumentsand soundly based conclusions.

There can be no doubt that educating communities, organisations and agenciesacross the international arena require, value and benefit from greater access to andincreased understanding of the role that schools and educating institutions can play

v

vi Editorial by Series Editors

in developing citizenship through both formal and informal learning, and the waysin which these concepts and goals are defined and enacted. A significant help in se-curing such understanding is the analysis and assessments offered in this volume bymeans of a range of comparative studies on these and associated themes from othercountries in the European community. One of the virtues of this review is the searchfor critical incidents of citizenship learning in the seven countries investigated. Inthese settings school is regarded not only as a place of formal learning but also asa form of social organisation where a great deal of informal learning takes place.By focussing on and exploring such critical incidents, the authors are able to set outexplanations of events and possibilities in unattended areas of learning, of majorimportance for the development of social attitudes and competences.

This volume edited by Jaap Scheerens is designed to shape, inform and aid theprocess of reflection about the responsibility educators and policy-makers have forinforming and developing students’ individual styles of learning, their forming ofvalues and for influencing the kind of society in which we live. It is this processof critical reflection on issues raised by the concepts of learning in all its variousmodes, stages and locations – schools, worksites and informal institutions, as sitesof learning and advancement in all their multifarious forms – and the conceptionand articulation of policies and institutional forms for the development and enlarge-ment of a sense of social responsibility among all citizens of a modern participativedemocracy, that will best promote the values instantiated in them, and that shouldcontinue throughout life.

We have pleasure in launching this volume as evidence of the excellence andrange of the work undertaken since the commencement of this Series by Springer.Springer have done the editors and his colleagues proud in this further publication:it enhances the name and reputation of their publisher as one of the leading interna-tional actors in the publication and dissemination of scholarly and professional workcharacterising intellectual advances in this domain. For our part, we trust that itsreaders will find this collection as stimulating, thought-provoking and controversialas the authors and editors who undertook the tasks of planning, shaping, and puttingthem all together into one volume; we believe we may with confidence commendthem to all those working in this field.

We believe that this further volume in the Springer Lifelong Learning Book Serieswill provide the wide range of constituencies working in the domain of lifelonglearning with a rich range of new material for their consideration and further inves-tigation. We may continue to hope that it will encourage their continuing criticalthinking, research and development, academic and scholarly production, and marka further stage in their individual, institutional and professional advancement.

November 2008 David Aspin and Judith Chapman

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this book was supported by a grant from the EuropeanCommission under the Socrates programme, Action 6.1.2 “General activities of ob-servation, analysis and innovation” and Action 6.2 “Innovatory initiatives respond-ing to emerging needs”.

The organization and administration of this project was supported by Mrs. MariaHendriks and Mrs. Carola Groeneweg, who also carried out the word processing ofthe manuscript.

vii

Contents

1 Aims and Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Jaap Scheerens

2 A Conceptual Framework on Informal Learning of ActiveCitizenship Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Ralf Maslowski, Heiko Breit, Lutz Eckensberger and Jaap Scheerens

3 Design of the Case Studies: Procedure and Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Jaap Scheerens

4 Cyprus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Petros Pashiardis, Maria Georgiou and Mihales Georghiou

5 Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Lejf Moos, John Krejsler and Per Fibæk Laursen

6 England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Sally Thomas, Wen Jung Peng and Wan Ching Yee

7 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153Hermann Josef Abs, Heiko Breit, Annette Huppert, Anne Schmidtand Stefan Muller-Mathis

8 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Giovanna Barzano, Emanuela Brumana, Gianfrancesco Musumeci,Valeria Pastore, Mauro Palumbo and Marco Razzi

9 Romania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243Megdonia Paunescu and Radu Alexandrescu

10 The Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261Maria Hendriks and Jaap Scheerens

ix

x Contents

11 Recommendations and Consultation with Policy Makers . . . . . . . . . . . . 305Jaap Scheerens

12 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327Jaap Scheerens

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

Contributors

Hermann Josef Abs Deutsches Institut fur Internationale PadagogischeForschung, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, abs@dipf.de

Radu Alexandrescu Ministerul Educatiei, Cercetarii si Tineretului, Bucharest,Romania, ralex@unet.ro

Giovanna Barzano Associazione Rete Stresa, Osio Soto (BG), Italy,gbarzano@istruzione.lombardia.it

Heiko Breit Deutsches Institut fur Internationale Padagogische Forschung,Frankfurt am Main, Germany, breit@dipf.de

Emanuela Brumana Associazione Rete Stresa, Osio Soto (BG), Italy,brumana@gmail.com

Lutz Eckensberger Deutsches Institut fur Internationale Padagogische Forschung,Frankfurt am Main, Germany, eckensberger@dipf.de

Mihales Georghiou Open University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus,mikegiou@yahoo.ca

Maria Georgiou Open University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus,sepgmg1@ucy.ac.cy

Maria Hendriks Department of Educational Organization and Management,University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, m.a.hendriks@utwente.nl

Annette Huppert Deutsches Institut fur Internationale Padagogische Forschung,Frankfurt am Main, Germany, huppert@dipf.de

John Krejsler Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsskole, University of Aarhus,Copenhagen, Denmark, jok@dpu.dk

Per Fibæk Laursen Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsskole, University ofAarhus, Copenhagen, Denmark, pefi@dpu.dk

Ralf Maslowski Department of Educational Organization and Management,University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, r.maslowski@rug.nl

xi

xii Contributors

Lejf Moos Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsskole, University of Aarhus,Copenhagen, Denmark, moos@dpu.dk

Stefan Muller-Mathis Deutsches Institut fur Internationale PadagogischeForschung, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, muellermathis@yahoo.de

Gianfrancesco Musumeci Associazione Rete Stresa, Osio Soto (BG), Italy,gf.musumeci@virgilio.it

Mauro Palumbo Universita degli Studi di Genova, Genova, Italy,mauro.palumbo@unige.it

Petros Pashiardis Open University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus,p.pashiardis@ouc.ac.cy

Valeria Pastore Universita degli Studi di Genova, Genova, Italy, vale-ria.pastore@unige.it

Megdonia Paunescu Ministerul Educatiei, Cercetarii si Tineretului, Bucharest,Romania, megdonia.paunescu@medu.edu.ro

Wen Jung Peng Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK,Wj.Peng@bristol.ac.uk

Marco Razzi Universita degli Studi di Genova, Genova, Italy, mrazzi@tin.it

Jaap Scheerens Department of Educational Organization and Management,University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, j.scheerens@utwente.nl

Anne Schmidt Deutsches Institut fur Internationale Padagogische Forschung,Frankfurt am Main, Germany, schmidta@dipf.de

Sally Thomas Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK,S.Thomas@bristol.ac.uk

Wan Ching Yee Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK,Wan.Yee@bristol.ac.uk

Chapter 1Aims and Scope of the Study

Jaap Scheerens

1.1 Aims and Objectives

In this chapter, the aims and objectives of the international comparative study onwhich this book is based are described. The study took place in seven countries,namely, Cyprus, Denmark, England, Germany, Italy, Romania, and the Netherlands.The study was funded by the European Commission.

1.1.1 Rationale and Background of the Study

1.1.1.1 Education for Citizenship

In a context of increased complexity, with changing patterns of work, family life,and community engagement, the internationalization and social cohesion of the mul-ticultural society are causes for growing societal concern. Social cohesion refers tothe “quality of the trust and responsibility relationships existing in a society, bothamong its members and between them and their institutions” (EU, 2004, p. 6). Thisconcept is closely related to social capital, which “refers to the norms and networksfacilitating co-operation either within or between groups” (OECD, 2001, p. 12). Theconcept of citizenship refers to “The individual members’ commitment to the well-being of fellow members of the society and their commitment to the functioning ofthe institutions of society” (EU, 2004, p. 6).

International cooperation among European countries and a growing heterogene-ity of the (school) populations of most European countries have led to an increasedinterest in education for citizenship. This interest is based on a concern for a com-mon set of norms and values and a desire that all live up to these norms. The corequestion of the study was therefore concerned with the role that schools can play indeveloping citizenship through not only formal learning but also informal learning.

J. Scheerens (B)Department of Educational Organization and Management, University of Twente, Enschede,the Netherlands

This chapter is fully based on the study proposal as contained in the grant request to the EuropeanCommission.

J. Scheerens (ed.), Informal Learning of Active Citizenship at School, Lifelong LearningBook Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9621-1 1,C© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

1

2 J. Scheerens

1.1.1.2 Goals and Methods in Education for Citizenship

The goals of education for citizenship have been described as having threedimensions: a cognitive dimension with respect to knowledge about democraticinstitutions; a pragmatic dimension, in the sense of taking action and gaining ex-perience; and an affective dimension, in terms of an attachment to the societies andcommunities to which one belongs. Social and communication competencies areconsidered of central importance (cf. EU, 2004; Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald,& Schulz, 2001). Therefore, particular emphasis was placed on gaining experienceand “learning by doing” at school.

When it comes to methods in educating for citizenship at school, two broad cat-egories can be distinguished:

� Approaches that see the school context as a microcosm to exercise “school cit-izenship” as a bridge to societal citizenship and state citizenship; this will bereferred to as the “context-embedded approach”.

� Approaches in which school citizenship is characterized by specific goal-directedteaching and learning activities; this will be referred to as the “explicit teachingapproach”.

1.1.1.3 European Dimension

In the study, the concept of European citizenship was approached, first of all, as acommon denominator of national approaches to citizenship education. As such thecommon values upon which civilization is based were emphasized. The empiricallydetermined common core of approaches was compared to the available literatureon European citizenship to determine the common elements required for Europeancitizenship. Next, attention will be paid to what Osler & Starkey (2003) call cos-mopolitan citizenship, which is relevant to the emphasis that will be given to theposition of minority students.

1.1.1.4 Informal Learning at School

To define informal learning at school, it is relevant to consider the following defini-tions of formal, informal, and non-formal education:

Formal education: the hierarchically structured, chronologically graded “edu-cation system”, running from primary school through university. This includes avariety of specialized programmes and institutions for full-time technical and pro-fessional training, in addition to general academic studies.

Informal education: the truly lifelong process whereby every individual acquiresattitudes, values, skills, and knowledge from daily experience and the educativeinfluences and resources in his or her environment—from family and neighbours,from work and play, from the market place, and from the library and the mass media.

Non-formal education: any organized educational activity outside the establishedformal system—whether operating separately or as an important feature of some

1 Aims and Scope of the Study 3

broader activity—that is intended to serve identifiable learning clienteles and learn-ing objectives (cf. Coombs & Ahmed, 1974; Fordham, 1993).

In the study, the focus was on informal learning in a formal setting. That is,informal learning within schools, where learning, apart from being stimulated byformal and explicit teaching, is seen as also taking place during the daily experiencesinside and outside classrooms.

1.1.1.5 Dimensions of the Microcosm of School Life as a Contextof Informal Learning for Citizenship

According to the embedded perspective on citizenship-oriented education, the val-ues and norms of school life provide an exercise ground for important dimensionsof civic behaviour that exist in the society at large. Three “media” of the values andnorms of school life are distinguished as (1) the institutional rules and norms of theschool as an organization, (2) the leadership style of the school head, and (3) theschool culture. Related concepts are the “hidden curriculum” and “school ethos”.All these components can be seen as shaping the school’s identity.

McMeekin (2003) applies the concept of institutions at the micro level of organi-zational functioning, when he writes about “the concept of institutions inside schoolorganizations” (ibid., p. 3). Components of this concept are: formal rules, informalrules, enforcement mechanisms, clarity of objectives, and the “institutional climate”.

School culture can be defined as “the basic assumptions, norms and values, andcultural artefacts that are shared by school members, and which influence theirfunctioning at school” (Maslowski, 2001, p. 5). Deal & Peterson (1999) refer tothe “school’s own informal rules, norms and expectations”.

Ethos is defined as the “feeling that results from the school culture” (Solvason,2005).

School leadership is the way in which the school head embodies and enforcesschool norms and values, particularly those that refer to discipline, respect for oth-ers, cooperation, and autocratic vs. democratic decision-making.

Earlier research has shown that by experiencing a culture where the explorationand expression of opinions are supported by teachers (e.g., controversial discus-sions, an open classroom climate), students form a positive attitude towards activecitizenship and democratic values (Diedrich, 2006).

1.1.1.6 Learning by Doing, Explicit Teaching, and Reflective Teaching

As stated earlier, the focus of the study was on informal learning of students, thatis exposure to the school context as determined by institutional norms, culture, andleadership. As such, we treated explicit teaching of citizenship merely as descriptivebackground information—as part of certain subjects or as a cross-curricular subject.We concentrated on informal learning by looking for evidence about association ofcontextual aspects and outcome dimensions of citizenship.

Reflective teaching is defined as an approach in which teachers reflect on criticalincidents which hold pedagogical potential for learning about citizenship. In such

4 J. Scheerens

an approach, instances of behaviour by students, teachers, and school heads canbe compared to the norms and values of school life. In such a reflective approach,teachers could stimulate learning by experience by making relevant events explicit.

1.1.1.7 Summary of the Rationale and Background of the Study

The general aims of the study were to clarify the core and related concepts of citi-zenship as a concern for schooling and to study informal learning embedded in theschool context in more detail. As part of the conceptual analysis, basic questionsabout the degree to which citizenship is viewed as a legitimate task of schoolingwere raised as well. Consequently, the state of the art of dealing with citizenshipin schools in the participating countries was described on the basis of intensivecase studies of a limited number of schools. The results of the case studies will bedescribed in subsequent chapters dealing with the general issue of the “teach ability”of citizenship at school, strengths and weaknesses of the context-embedded and theexplicit teaching approaches, the quality of methods and materials, and the possi-bility to assess the realization of citizenship at school by means of quantitative andqualitative assessment approaches. In the school analyses, school composition (theproportion of students with a minority background) is used as an important strati-fication variable. The study meant to deliver conclusions about common objectivesregarding citizenship across European countries and about promising approaches.

1.1.2 Study Objectives

The study was guided by the following objectives:

1. To provide conceptual clarity about citizenship as an educational goal.2. To provide information on the development of embedded and explicit teaching

approaches of citizenship in the participating countries in terms of school priori-ties, methods, and assessments, where the emphasis is to be on informal learningand embedded approaches.

3. To analyse opportunities and constraints regarding school composition, definedas the proportion of students from cultural minorities in the school.

4. To establish to what degree a common core of objectives and methods can bediscerned in the participating countries and relate this common core to the issueof European citizenship.

5. To draw conclusions about practices in embedded teaching methods, consideredfruitful in fostering informal learning of active citizenship.

1.1.3 Available Knowledge and Added Value of the Study

A recent report published by the Dutch Ministry of Education under the aus-pices of the European Union (EU, 2004) provides an excellent overview of theconceptualization of citizenship and the role of education. The report mentionsboth interesting and promising practices. As far as the quantitative measurementof citizenship is concerned, the IEA Civic study (Torney-Purta et al., 2001) is an

1 Aims and Scope of the Study 5

important reference. The added value of the present study was seen as defining moreprecisely the context of informal learning for citizenship at school by making use ofconstructs and available instruments to measure school institutional norms, culture,and leadership. The study sought to explore empirical relationships between theschool culture and outcome dimensions of citizenship education (differentiated forboys and girls), possibly mediated by reflective teaching approaches. It also lookedat relevant constraints and stimulants stemming from school composition, in termsof the percentage of cultural minority students. Preliminary analyses of a Germanstudy, based on data from 43 schools, showed that on the school level, importantcriteria for civic education such as (the absence of) xenophobia are linked to aspectsof school democracy and school culture, for example to the perceived level of de-mocratization (from teachers as well as students point of view), opportunities forparticipation, and open classroom climate (cf. Diedrich, 2006).

1.1.4 Target Groups

The study was designed to provide relevant information for education policymakersat the central, regional, and local level and for directors and teachers of secondaryschools. Results might also be of use for school advisory services, curriculum plan-ners, and school inspectorates.

1.1.5 Innovative Aspects

The study was innovative in its attempt to clarify and empirically study the impact ofthe school institutional context and informal learning culture relevant to the develop-ment of citizenship. These are relatively new fields of study, and combining them isseen as quite innovative. The study also built on recent research findings about theimportance of school composition (e.g., Luyten, Scheerens, Visscher, Maslowski,Witziers, & Steen, 2005; Willms, 2004) and, in this way, provided a link to the prob-lem of disadvantaged groups at school. The study sought to be methodologicallyinnovative in using available “quantitative” instruments as a basis for a qualitativestudy of the complex phenomena targeted.

1.2 Intended Project Outcomes

1.2.1 Research Questions and Deliverables

1.2.1.1 Research Questions

1. How can citizenship as an educational objective be conceptually distinguishedfrom social cohesion, social and cultural capital, and social and culturalintegration?

2. How can education for citizenship remain relevant to future perspectives oneducation in relation to competency-based education, new conceptions of school-ing, education and globalization, and situated cognition?

6 J. Scheerens

3. Which components can be discerned in both a context-embedded approach andan explicit teaching approach to citizenship education? How can the compo-nents of the context-embedded approach be articulated in the form of a check-list to guide the information gathering for school case studies? Which evi-dence from the context-embedded approaches can stimulate informal learning incitizenship?

4. What is the state of citizenship education in the participating countries, as evidentfrom a limited number of in-depth school case descriptions?

5. Are the opportunities and constraints of citizenship education experienced dif-ferently by teachers and school leaders in schools with a different compositionof cultural minority students?

6. Which promising practices in embedded approaches to develop citizenship andassess the outcomes of citizenship education can be discerned, and what are theoptions for quantitative and qualitative assessment?

The deliverables of the study were the following:

– A conceptual chapter in which the conceptual basis for informal learning ofcitizenship-related competencies is clarified.

– A set of checklists and scales to guide data collection in schools.– Six case study descriptions per country, according to a fixed framework.– A set of guidelines and approaches to assist schools in optimizing embedded

informal learning on issues relevant to citizenship, including suggestions for ateaching approach that reflects on informal learning opportunities.

– A chapter of integrated case study results, culminating in suggestions for promis-ing practices in stimulating informal learning and assessment.

– A chapter in which the focus of the study is summarized and recommendationsfor national and European citizenship in education are given.

1.2.2 Anticipated Impact on Target Groups of the Study

Policymakers and educational researchers were to be presented with a clear con-ceptual structure placing informal learning about citizenship issues in a context thatis determined by the school culture (in terms of both explicit institutional normsand more implicit shared values) and school composition. Policymakers were to beinformed about the degree to which this area can be seen as malleable by policy andschool management. Educational researchers are expected to be stimulated to usethe framework and empirical findings for further study.

Practitioners in the field of lower secondary education are provided with casestudy material with good practice descriptions that could inspire their own work.

School advisors and school inspectors are provided with information that couldhelp them design monitoring and evaluation methods of informal learning forcitizenship.

1 Aims and Scope of the Study 7

1.3 Approach and Organization

1.3.1 Methods and Stages in the Work

The study had an analytic and an empirical part. The work was divided into fivestages: (1) conceptual analysis, (2) preparation of data collection, (3) execution ofempirical data collection, (4) analysis, interpretation, and summary of data, and (5)reporting.

The study’s conceptual and analytic work was closely linked to the empirical partby means of checklists derived from the conceptual framework guiding the schoolcase studies. The conceptual analysis should result in a framework in which theoverarching concepts of school identity and development of citizenship at schoolare broken down into more operational components.

In each country, six lower secondary schools in urban areas were selected.These six schools vary on the basis of the school composition regarding the pro-portion of cultural minority students. Three categories were distinguished: lessthan 20% minority students, 35–45% minority students, and over 60% minoritystudents.

Data were collected on the basis of site visits and observations, analysis of schooldocuments such as the school programme or school development plan, interviews,and focus groups with teachers and the school head, and interviews and question-naires administered to students. To some extent, the questionnaires were based onscales already available from a large evaluation study in Germany (Diedrich, Abs,& Klieme, 2004). Data collection was guided by the following: checklists for inter-views and self-reports from school staff and students; addressing the school culture,school institutional norms, and objectives in the area of citizenship; the degree towhich schools approach citizenship on the basis of embedded or explicit teachingmethods, actual teaching methods, and learning material; and assessment and evalu-ation tools used by the schools. Data collection concentrated in particular on criticalinstances in the school that are of pedagogical importance for the development ofcitizenship. The key issue was to show how students learn from such instances (seethe list of areas in Table 1.1). In addition, the case studies collected information onthe degree to which the schools prioritized citizenship education and their satisfac-tion with approaches and outcomes. In Table 1.1, a tentative list of aspects of theschool’s identity is related to outcome dimensions of citizenship. School identity isseen as the union of formal institutional rules, the school culture, and the leadershipstyle of the school head. As such, identity is seen as a learning context for citizen-ship. Table 1.1 gives a preliminary overview of checkpoints and questions that wereto guide the data collection.

It should be noted that information from various sources, including students,was collected to determine relevant aspects of school identity. The outcome dimen-sions of citizenship were only addressed in an exploratory way, based on studentresponses.

8 J. Scheerens

Table 1.1 Aspects of school identity and outcome dimensions of citizenship linked

School identity Outcome dimensions of citizenship

Regulation of decision-making at school Democracy and its defining characteristicsRegulation of student voiceOpen classroom climateVisibility of decisions made at school Institutions and practices in democracyInstances of student decision-making on school

mattersPolitical interests

Subjective experience of teachers and studentsabout the school being hierarchical/autocraticor participative in decision-making

Whether the school head is perceived asautocratic or democratic by teachers andstudents

Perceived opportunities for student participationin decision-making

Clarity of disciplinary rules at school Citizenship, rights, and dutiesDegree of strictness and consistency with which

disciplinary rules are appliedSelf-concept of one’s own political

competenciesWhether student rights are formally stated Engagement in political activitiesThe way praise and blame are used by the school

head and teachersSeeking political information

The consistency between staff and school head inmaintaining discipline and enforcing rightsand rules

The degree to which rights and duties aremaintained in an equitable way for studentswith different backgrounds

The way possible clashes between students’cultural backgrounds and school rules aredealt with

Tension among the school staffCohesion in the school staffStudents’ feeling of efficacy in discourseStudents’ perception of violenceAre there any symbols of national identity visible

in the school (e.g., the raising of the flag,celebration of a king’s/queen’s birthday?)

National identity

How are special days of cultural minorities dealtwith at school?

What is the composition of the teaching staff interms of cultural majority and minorities?

Is assuring equal participation of parents from allcultural backgrounds a school goal?

Is the management style of the school headsupportive of teachers irrespective of culturalbackground?

Is the way students with different culturalbackgrounds interact used as a basis forteaching/pedagogical activities?

International relationships

Are staff members from cultural minorities wellintegrated in the school team?

1 Aims and Scope of the Study 9

Table 1.1 (continued)

Are controversial aspects of a heterogeneousschool population openly discussed in classes?Is background information on culturalidentities provided in those instances?

The degree to which the school staff supports themission and major goals of the school

Social cohesion and diversity

The degree to which the school head is focusedon human relations and staff cohesion

Integration of foreigners

Heterogeneity and homogeneity of the schoolstaff and the student population

The degree to which contacts between studentsfrom different cultural backgrounds areactively supported

Aspects where cultural diversity is explicitlysupported, along with common values, amongstudents

Students’ perception of the integration ofdifferent groups

1.4 Other Matters: Equity-Related IssuesConcerning Disadvantaged Groups

Cultural minorities provide schools with unique opportunities to experience and“live through” issues of participation and cultural diversity and the challenges toabide by common agreements and rules. Mixed school populations could thereforebe seen as fruitful contexts for the embedded approaches to citizenship education.It is likely that the degree of heterogeneity is crucially important for actually realiz-ing these potential benefits. It has been argued that when the proportion of culturalminorities makes up 40% of the school population, the problematic aspects of het-erogeneity predominate. It was therefore decided to carry out the school case studiesin schools with different proportions of cultural minority students in each country.

References

Coombs, P., & Ahmed, M. (1974). Attacking rural poverty. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univer-sity Press.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Diedrich, M. (2006). Connections between quality of school life and democracy in German

schools. In A. Sliwka, M. Diedrich, & M. Hofer (Eds.), Citizenship education (pp. 121–134).Munster: Waxmann Verlag.

Diedrich, M., Abs, H. J., & Klieme, E. (2004). Evaluation im BLK-modellprogramm demokratielernen und leben: Skalen zur befragung von Schuler/-innen, Lehrer/-innen und Schulleitungen.Frankfurt am Main: DIPF, 189 S. (Materialien zur Bildungsforschung. Bd. 11).

European Union; Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (2004). Citizenship: madein Europe: Living together starts at school. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur enWetenschap.

10 J. Scheerens

Fordham, P. E. (1993). Informal, non-formal and formal education programmes. In ICE301 Life-long Learning Unit 2. London: YMCA George Williams College.

Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., Visscher, A. J., Maslowski, R., Witziers, B., & Steen, R. (2005). Schoolfactors related to quality and equity. Paris: OECD (PISA 2000 Thematic Report).

Maslowski, R. (2001). School culture and school performance. Ph.D. Thesis. Enschede: TwenteUniversity Press.

McMeekin, R. W. (2003) Networks of schools. Education Policy Archives, 11, 1–16.OECD (2001). The well-being of nations. The role of human and social capital. Paris: OECD.Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: Theoretical debates and

young people’s experiences. Educational Review, 55(3), 243–254.Solvason, C. (2005). Integrating specialist school ethos. . .or do you mean culture? Education Stud-

ies, 31, 85–95.Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in

twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge at age fourteen. Amsterdam: IEA.Willms, J. D. (2004). Student engagement at school. A sense of belonging and participation. Re-

sults from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.

Chapter 2A Conceptual Framework on InformalLearning of Active Citizenship Competencies

Ralf Maslowski, Heiko Breit, Lutz Eckensberger and Jaap Scheerens

2.1 Introduction

The conceptual framework for this study consists of three types of factors (seeFig. 2.1):

1. the citizenship competencies and values,2. the informal student activities and experiences at school and3. the school context.

The first factor, referring to citizenship competencies and values, can be seen asresulting from (among other origins) the informal student activities and learning ex-periences at school. The second factor, informal activities and experiences at school,represents situations in which students ‘learn’ certain citizenship competencies. Assuch, these can be considered as mediating factors between the competencies andvalues on the one hand, and the school context, in which these activities and experi-ences are embedded on the other. The school context can be conceived as consistingof factors stimulating or restraining informal student activities and experiences.

Although the citizenship competencies and values are considered as being in-fluenced by students’ informal learning experiences, it is acknowledged that thesecompetencies and values, in their turn, influence informal activities and experiences.Moreover, citizenship competencies and values can also shape several school con-text conditions, under which the informal learning experiences take place. As such,the three types of factors are seen as related in a reciprocal rather than in a one-direction linear way.

The citizenship competencies (see Section 2.2), informal student activities andexperiences at school (see Section 2.3) and school context (see Section 2.4) arediscussed in more detail in the following sections.

R. Maslowski (B)Department of Educational Organization and Management, University of Twente, Enschede,the Netherlands

J. Scheerens (ed.), Informal Learning of Active Citizenship at School, Lifelong LearningBook Series 14, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9621-1 2,C© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

11

12 R. Maslowski et al.

Competenciesrelevant for activecitizenshipa. Citizenship values b. Normative competenciesc. Action competencies

Explicit teaching ofcitizenship

ìFormal ” learningexperiences, i.e. lessons

Students’ informallearning experiences:critical incidentsa. Dealing with conflict situations in schoolb. Dealing with differences between cultures / multiculturality

c. Dealing with peers and issues of collaboration in student (project) work

School culture a. Collaboration between teachersb. Teacher participation c. Professional developmentd. Relationship with parents

Classroom climate a. Student-teacher relationship b. Assessment orientation / monitoringc. Behavioral and disciplinary rulesd. Open climate for expressing one’s views and discussion

School leadership a. Distributive leadershipb. Community building c. Communicative leadershipd. Empowerment

Structures for studentinvolvement

a. Existence of school council / school parliament etc.b. Opportunities for students to engage in school activities (like school paper etc.)

c.Projects at school for helping others

Fig. 2.1 Conceptual framework

2 A Conceptual Framework on Informal Learning 13

2.2 Citizenship Competencies and Values

The concept of responsible citizenship has gained increasing interest in educationalpolicy and practice. It is closely related to civic values such as democracy and hu-man rights, equality, participation, partnership, social cohesion, solidarity, toleranceof diversity and social justice (Eurydice, 2005). Various classifications of citizen-ship competencies have been proposed by various national education committeesand councils. Although these classifications often differ across nations, a number ofcommon themes can nevertheless be identified.

First, citizenship competencies often involve some form of political literacy ofstudents, such as students’ knowledge about social, political and civic institutions,as well as human rights, or recognition of the cultural and historical heritage. This issometimes accompanied by knowledge on conditions under which people may liveharmoniously together, social issues and ongoing social problems or knowledge andrecognition of the cultural and linguistic diversity of society (Eurydice, 2005). Asecond common factor is community involvement or participation in society. Thisusually concerns the skills to become helpfully involved in the life of the commu-nity, and be in service of the community one belongs to (Deakin Crick, Coates,Taylor, & Ritchie, 2004). This incorporates not only school but also the wider lo-cal, regional or national communities, and may, with regard to a form of Europeancitizenship, also encompass a cross-national community. Thirdly, moral and socialdevelopment, or a development of critical thinking and moral values are identified aspart of citizenship competencies. These latter elements involve acquiring social andmoral responsibility, including self-confidence and learning to behave responsiblytowards others. Moreover, students are expected to develop a recognition of and re-spect for oneself and others with a view to achieving greater mutual understanding.

In the project on which this book is based, citizenship competencies were primar-ily conceived as moral and social skills that enable students to perform adequatelywithin the community (at the various aggregation levels) they are part of, and torelate to their fellow men. This concerns elements of all three themes describedabove, although the first – given its primate of knowledge on structures – is clearlyless important than the other two. These substantial elements are seen as being sub-jected to different kinds of reflection by the learner. Underlying this classification isPiaget’s notion that a person acts vis-a-vis the world, which leads to that person’sexperiences in dealing with his or her environment, and to barriers or impedimentsfaced (problems and conflicts). These barriers are the reason for reflection on ac-tions, which will lead to some solutions to overcome these problems and conflicts.These might either work or not, which subsequently will lead to reflection on reflec-tions, appearing in values, general principles and questions of identity. Thus, threedimensions are identified:

1. related to ‘actions’, consisting of communicative, and instrumental and strategicaction competencies;

2. ‘reflection on action’, or normative competencies, which act as a framework foractions, concerning issues of morality, tolerance and trust; and

14 R. Maslowski et al.

3. ‘reflection on reflections’, or values, concerning human dignity, sustainability,identity and efficacy.

In the sections below, these three dimensions of citizenship competencies andvalues are further explained (see Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Action competencies

Action competencies Normative competencies Citizenship values

Communicative actions Morality Human dignityInstrumental and strategic actions Tolerance and mutual respect Sustainability

Trust IdentityEfficacy

2.2.1 Action Competencies

Action competencies are conceptualized in this study, following Habermas’ theoryof communicative action, as communicative, and instrumental and strategic action(Habermas, 1990). In his discussion of rational action, Habermas differentiates be-tween action oriented towards success and action oriented towards reaching under-standing. In this context, success is evaluated relative to states of affairs purposefullygenerated by intervention in the world. Reaching understanding, on the other hand,is a process by which participants seek agreement concerning the nature of theirinteraction. Such an agreement defines the context within which actors pursue theirindividual plans.

2.2.1.1 Instrumental and Strategic Action

Instrumental and strategic actions are success-oriented, that is to accomplish certainaims in negotiation or mediation with others. The intent of strategic communica-tion, for instance, is not to reach an agreement about the goals of the action or toreach an understanding, but simply to convince others that a certain plan should beimplemented, or a certain goal should be pursued (Johnson, 1991). In contrast toinstrumental action, in strategic action this process takes place in a social context,influencing the actions of others involved. These actors can have their own agenda,and may have opposite views. Instrumental action takes place in a non-social contextand has the character of one-way communication. In the context of our study, instru-mental and strategic action refers to the persuasive and coercive strategies studentsdevelop to convince others of their arguments, and the willingness and ability toexpress their thoughts.

2.2.1.2 Communicative Action

In contrast to the goal-oriented instrumental and strategic action, the communicativeactions are consent-oriented. Communicative action consists of attempts by actorsto cooperatively define the context of their interaction. It is the paradigmatic form

2 A Conceptual Framework on Informal Learning 15

of social action towards reaching understanding (Johnson, 1991). It involves partici-pants in the cooperative negotiation of common definitions of the situation in whichthey are interacting. In everyday communicative practice, this process of mutualinterpretation remains implicit. In more reflective forms of communicative action –what Habermas refers to as discourse or argument – it is made explicit. In terms ofcitizenship competencies, students have to develop skills to listen to the argumentsof others, discuss arguments with others and judge the value of these arguments andthe willingness to reach consensus or to reach compromises.

2.2.2 Normative Competencies

Normative competencies concern issues of morality, tolerance and trust.

2.2.2.1 Morality

Morality or competencies of moral reasoning are conceptualized, followingGilligan’s (1986) distinction, by an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. The dif-ference between these two is that in the case of justice, the problem is conceived asa conflict between individuals, whereas in the case of care one speaks of rupturesin relationships. Also, reasoning in terms of justice is based on rules, standardsor principles, whereas reasoning in terms of care is ‘context-relative’. This meansthat within the ethic of care, rules do not play an important part in the selection ofrelevant information for solving or thinking about moral problems. Care is basedon a representation, as complete as possible, of the concrete situation, the partiesinvolved and their relationships.

This distinction between ethic of justice and ethic of care thus relates to whatScheerens (1983) has identified as procedural and substantive rationality. Studentsneed to have a normative sense on moral dilemmas based on institutionalized, legalunderstandings, that is procedural rationality. At the same time, they need to havethe skills to relate this dilemma to the benefits or deficits of all the parties or actorsinvolved.

2.2.2.2 Tolerance and Mutual Respect

According to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO)’s (1995) Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, tolerance is respect,acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our formsof expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness,communication, freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmonyin difference. As such, it is closely intertwined with mutual respect for others in andoutside school. Special attention in this respect deserves tolerance towards people –peer students, teachers or people living in the neighbourhood – with other religions,of other race or other sexual preferences.

16 R. Maslowski et al.

2.2.3 Citizenship Values

2.2.3.1 Self-Efficacy

People are not only agents of action but also able to reflect on their actions. Thiscapability may strengthen or weaken one’s belief in his or her own effectiveness.Through reflective self-consciousness, people evaluate their motivation, their ac-tions and the effects of their actions. It is at this higher level of self-reflectivitythat individuals address conflicts in motivational inducements and choose to act infavour of one over another (Bandura, 2001). According to Bandura, people’s beliefsin their capability to exercise some measure of control over their own functioningand (collectively) over events in their environment form the foundation for theiractions. ‘Unless people believe they can produce desired results and forestall detri-mental ones by their actions, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in theface of difficulties. Whatever other factors may operate as guides and motivators,they are rooted in the core belief that one has the power to produce effects by one’sactions’ (p. 10). Bandura’s contention of the influential role played by efficacy be-liefs in human functioning is supported by various meta-analyses on self-efficacy(Holden, 1991; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).

2.2.3.2 Human Dignity

Human dignity is based on the belief that every person, regardless of circumstancesof his/her existence, is entitled to be treated as an individual worthy of respect.Through human dignity, students establish a clear understanding that individualfeelings and ideas are worthy of self-expression and respect. Ownership of per-sonal views and emotions is at the heart of self-acceptance, and the security toshare genuinely unique aspects of self creates trust and confidence (Rogers, 1969;Fraser, 1987).

2.2.3.3 Sustainability

Sustainability refers to the ideals of a sustainable world – a world that is just, equi-table and peaceable, in which individuals care for the environment to contribute tointergenerational equity. This involves not only natural resources, such as respect fornature, but also ‘social’ resources. These latter refer to care for other people livingin poverty or under difficult circumstances.

2.3 Informal Student Activities and Experiences

Citizenship competencies are acquired by students explicitly or implicitly, throughformal, non-formal or informal learning. This study is aimed at identifying the ac-quisition of citizenship competencies through informal learning at school. Infor-mal learning is often contrasted with formal learning or formal education, and is

2 A Conceptual Framework on Informal Learning 17

distinguished from non-formal education. To mark the differences between theseterms, Coombs & Ahmed’s (1974) classification is widely adopted:

� Formal education refers to the ‘institutionalised, chronologically graded and hi-erarchically structured educational system, spanning lower primary school andthe upper reaches of the university’ (p. 8).

� Non-formal education is ‘any organized, systematic, educational activity carriedon outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learn-ing to particular subgroups in the population, adults as well as children’ (p. 8).

� Informal education is ‘the lifelong process by which every person acquires andaccumulates knowledge, skills, attitudes and insights from daily experiences andexposure to the environment’ (p. 8).

Following these definitions, both formal and non-formal education consist of or-ganized educational activities, although the definition of formal education suggeststhat formal education encompasses a sequence of years, with a curriculum overar-ching these various years, whereas non-formal education usually covers a shortertime frame. Also, non-formal education seems to be addressed to specific groups,over a time span from children to adults, whereas the definition of formal educationsuggests that it is not directed towards a specific group with specific needs, but tothe whole population, and its age span is more limited to young children to youngadults. Despite these implicit differences, the most notable distinction between thetwo types of education, however, is the fact that the term formal education is re-served for ‘official’ education, legitimated by law. Non-formal education, on theother hand, takes place outside of this formal structure, and might be very diverse inits forms, and in the actors involved in this kind of education.

Formal education and informal education can be considered as opposites in thedefinition of Coombs and Ahmed. Most strikingly, this can be illustrated by thefact that formal education is described from the viewpoint of the ‘system’, whereasinformal education is described from the viewpoint of the ‘learner’. In formal ed-ucation, external agencies determine the content of education, whereas in informallearning no prescription regarding the content can be made. What people learn isdependent on the context they face, and how they deal with these contexts. This issometimes described as how ‘open’ or how ‘sensitive’ learners are to pick up theopportunities for learning in the situations offered to them. At the same time, thedefinition of informal learning indicates that ‘people learn all of the time’, and it isan ongoing process from a person’s birth till his death.

Unlike informal education where learning happens less consciously, in non-formal education the individual is usually aware of the fact that he/she is learning.

In these definitions, the difference between formal, non-formal and informaleducation is often narrowed to the settings in which education takes place. Thismay be the consequence of the term ‘education’ used in these definitions. As LaBelle (1982) has noticed, it is useful to distinguish between the settings or modeson the one hand and the processes that take place on the other. As far as processesare concerned, he prefers to refer to ‘learning’ instead of ‘education’. As La Belleindicates, non-formal learning may take place in formal settings, for instance where

18 R. Maslowski et al.

extracurricular activities that fall outside the formal curriculum are scheduled byschools. Similarly, informal learning can take place in formal education, throughlearning experiences of students while working in peer groups. In this study, wewill conceptualize informal learning in terms of processes, rather than in termsof settings. Informal learning in a school context then refers to a specific form oflearning, which is studied in the setting of ‘formal education’.

Even given this clarification, it is nevertheless sometimes difficult to distinguishformal learning from informal learning. A large number of countries have recentlyturned to, or are about to turn to, forms of active learning, self-directed or self-regulated learning, and collaborative learning. These forms – as well as similar typesof learning – are based on the constructivist principle of knowledge construction.Schuell (1988) has typified this as ‘It is active in that the student must do certainthings while processing incoming information in order to learn the material in ameaningful manner. It is constructive in that new information must be elaboratedand related to other information in order for the student to retain simple informationand to understand complex material. It is cumulative in that all new learning buildsupon and/or utilizes the learner’s prior knowledge in ways that determine what andhow much is learned. It is goal oriented in that learning is most likely to be success-ful if the learner is aware of the goal (at least in a general sense) toward which heor she is working and possesses expectations that are appropriate for attaining thedesired outcome.’ (p. 277–278) To the degree that learning activities and learningoutcomes are not specified in advance, actual student learning will also be dependenton conversations with peers, working with peers in groups and discussions with theteacher, for instance. These activities can also be considered to be of an informalnature.

The learning that takes place is, in the first instance, dependent on the reflectivecompetencies of students (cf. Schon, 1983). These, however, can be stimulated byothers facing the same situation, like peers, or more likely the teacher. Fagen (1986)has presented a continuum for classroom intervention strategies teachers can useto reduce undesirable behaviour in students, or to increase desirable behaviour. Heranges these responses from ‘least intensive’ to ‘most intensive’. Stimulating de-sirable behaviour ranges from stating expectations and modelling, over structuringand positive reinforcement, to regulated permission, contracting and token systems.Informal learning of citizenship competencies, therefore, will occur as a result ofself-reflection, dialogue and discourse.

As a consequence, critical incidents where learning takes place will involve someform of self-reflection by the student, dialogue or discourse. As such, the critical in-cidents are often unexpected or unforeseen situations in the classroom or in school,which give rise to any of these forms. These occur, for instance, when conflictsituations between students, or between a teacher and a student, emerge. Theseinformal learning experiences may also emerge from situations in schools wherereactions are largely culturally bound, and where others react in a different mannerto the same circumstances. And, they may arise from collaboration or mutual workwith peers, for example during group work or other ‘formal’ classroom or schoolactivities.

2 A Conceptual Framework on Informal Learning 19

2.4 School Context

Research studies focusing on school and context factors that influence the (informal)learning of citizenship competencies, or that might enhance or hinder situationsin which citizenship learning occurs, are relatively sparse. Notable exceptions arestudies described in the recent reviews of Deakin Crick et al. (2004) and Halstead &Taylor (2000) on this issue. Largely based on these reviews, as well as a on few stud-ies that addressed this topic recently, the following factors are identified: classroomclimate, school culture, school leadership and structures for student involvement.

2.4.1 Classroom Climate and School Culture

Teachers play an important role in school when dealing with sociomoral problemsthat arise in school. When confronted with student conflict, teachers may employdifferent coping strategies. As Oser & Althof (1993) argue, teachers need to in-volve students in a discourse on these issues. Meaningful involvement of studentspresumes awareness of the teacher of his or her responsibility in dealing with theconflicts that occur. Other criteria for creating an (informal) situation to addressthese sociomoral controversies include commitment of teachers, teachers’ partic-ipation, the presupposition that students have reasoning skills to deal with theseissues and the actual participation of students in the decision on how to act (Oser &Althof, 1993). Strategies teachers use will depend on the nature of the sociomoralconflicts that occur. In a study on Israelian schools, Maslovaty (2000) found thatteachers are inclined to take up conflicts of integrity through private talks with stu-dents. This included situations in which a student monitor marks an absent friend asbeing present, good friends who both hand in identical homework or two studentsclaiming the same paper. On issues involving physical and verbal violence, teachersoften relied on group discussions. This included circumstances in which a studenttells on his friends, and gets beaten for it by them, as well as a new immigrantstudent who is laughed at because of his accent.

Maslovaty (2000) concludes that the nature of conflicts determines to a largeextent how these are dealt with in the classroom. Besides this, the community ofteachers and the school climate play an important role. Teachers are more inclinedto use discourse with their students to resolve moral dilemmas when the teachingstaff is committed towards reconciling conflict and confrontation, and promotingexchange of views. A supportive community of teachers incites discussions withstudents. This emphasizes the need for consensus on professional morality amongstaff to raise teachers’ awareness of sociomoral issues, and to stimulate teachers todeal with these issues in a way that encourages the moral development of their stu-dents (cf. Deakin Crick et al., 2004). A set of shared values within the school com-munity is essential to go beyond the student’s acquisition of civic knowledge, skillsand understanding (Deakin Crick, 2002). By introducing shared values into teach-ing and learning across the curriculum, teachers found themselves able to address